It has the obligation to recognise the rights the Japanese government is forced to provide you.Japan does not have any obligation to recognize any of the rights that the U.S. government is forced to provide me.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It has the obligation to recognise the rights the Japanese government is forced to provide you.Japan does not have any obligation to recognize any of the rights that the U.S. government is forced to provide me.
To persons. For example, an accused does not have to be a citizen yet the Constitution provides him or her with protections. That you cannot perceive the difference is a triumph of invincible ignorance. It's described as invincible for a reason.Hey moron? Both of those apply to U.S. citizens only.
Actually the phrase is 'reading for comprehension'. I understand the unfamiliarity of such a concept.The term you are looking for is *loop holes"
If only that were true. Unfortunately for you, it was not “Dr. Johnston”, but rather Samuel Johnson who made that comment.Dr Johnston described patriotism as the last resort of a scoundrel. In reality it is the first refuge of a moron.
Voting is not the only right the Constitution (partially) protects.Let’s see if we can dumb this down to your level.
That'll serve me right for paraphrasing Bierce's response to Dr Johnson, but at least I'm not as ignorant about the Constitution as you. That would be unbearable and it's not even mine.Seems you are as ignorant of history as you are the U.S. Constitution.
It is time to put this idiotic left-wing false narrative to rest once and for all. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. As such, it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. A non-US citizen has no constitutional rights. None. They don't have a right to free speech. The don't have a right to keep and bear arms. They don't have a right to an attorney. They don't have a right to a phone call. And they can absolutely be held indefinitely without being charged. They have no rights.
You are spot-on on all points.It is time to put this idiotic left-wing false narrative to rest once and for all. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. As such, it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. A non-US citizen has no constitutional rights. None. They don't have a right to free speech. The don't have a right to keep and bear arms. They don't have a right to an attorney. They don't have a right to a phone call. And they can absolutely be held indefinitely without being charged. They have no rights.
The Founding Fathers agreed that we have "natural rights", rights that were God given and it was up to man to agree.
They simply chose to agree with those rights in the form of a Constitution.
In other words, the US government may subvert the Constitution, which they have done over the years, but I still have the same God given rights even though man may take them away from me.
Now you are correct that the Constitution only applies legally to the US. As a result, unless you are a US citizen it does not apply legally to you, unless you are visiting you must allow US citizens their rights under the law. In my opinion, allowing foreign invaders who are not US citizens have more rights than US citizens, in many cases, is just subverting the Constitution and even our God given rights.
How pre-14th amend of you.It is time to put this idiotic left-wing false narrative to rest once and for all. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. As such, it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. A non-US citizen has no constitutional rights. None. They don't have a right to free speech. The don't have a right to keep and bear arms. They don't have a right to an attorney. They don't have a right to a phone call. And they can absolutely be held indefinitely without being charged. They have no rights.
What does that mean?As a result, unless you are a US citizen it does not apply legally to you, unless you are visiting you must allow US citizens their rights under the law.
Ffs. Are you intentionally obtuse or is it a happy gift of nature? One does not need to be a US citizen to have constitutional rights and having constitutional rights does not automatically permit one to vote.But that doesn’t change the fact that if foreigners had constitutional rights, nobody could prevent them from voting.
Article [V] (Amendment 5 - Rights of Persons)You do not illegally walk over from Mexico and received constitutional rights upon stepping onto US soil
Yeah, but...Of course!Edit: with that said, is anyone really holding a position that the US constitution embrace other than US citizens?
Read the thing!
Folks, you just can’t make this stuff up. Yes, CNM really is this stupid (or desperate). The U.S. Constitution (specifically the 15th Amendment) disagrees with you....having constitutional rights does not automatically permit one to vote.
This isn’t rocket science, snowflake. You either have constitutional rights or you don’t. You cannot have some rights and be denied others. The fact that a foreigner cannot vote is enough proof alone that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. Idiot.The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State...
Thank you! No other nation will recognize your constitutional rights when you’re on their soil. Likewise, there is absolutely no obligation for the U.S. to provide constitutional rights to a foreigner while they are on our soil.I sort of missed the point of the OP. The US constitution is an internal US document, it has nothing to do with international law or anything.
Thank you! No other nation will recognize your constitutional rights when you’re on their soil. Likewise, there is absolutely no obligation for the U.S. to provide constitutional rights to a foreigner while they are on our soil.I sort of missed the point of the OP. The US constitution is an internal US document, it has nothing to do with international law or anything.
So glad you understand this. Sadly, CNM is either to stupid to understand it or too disingenuous to admit it.